Reader Survey Response:"In a sea of finance media, Cuffelinks stands a cut above the rest for its plain-English drafting and topical insights. Keep up the great work."

Reader Survey Response:"It is just right for me. I can quickly sort the items that I am interested in, then research them more fully. It is also a regular reminder that I need to get off my backside and do this."

Reader Survey Response:"Cuffelinks is excellent so please don't pollute the content with boring mainstream financial 'waffle' and adverts for stuff we don't want!"

Reader Survey Response:"I recommend Cuffelinks as the BEST in the game because of diversity and not aligned to financial products. Stands above all the noise."

Reader Survey Response:"Carry on as you are - well done. The average investor/SMSF trustee needs all the help they can get."

Reader Survey Response:"Congratulations on a great focussed news source. Australia suffers from a dearth of good quality "unbiased" financial and wealth management news sources."

Reader Survey Response:"I subscribe to two newsletters. Cuffelinks, this is my first read of the week. Thank you. Excellent and please keep up the good work!"

Reader Survey Response:"Love it, just keep doing what you are doing. It is the right length too, any longer and it might become a bit overwhelming."

Reader Survey Response:"Great resource. Cuffelinks is STILL the one and only weekly newsletter I regularly read."

Reader Survey Response:"An island of professionalism in an ocean of shallow self-interest. Well done!"

David Goldschmidt, Chartered Accountant:"I find this a really excellent newsletter. The best I get. Keep up the good work!"

Don Stammer, leading Australian economist:

"Congratulations to all associated with Cuffelinks. It deserves the good following it has."

John Egan, Egan Associates:
"My heartiest congratulations on an outstanding newsletter. Your panel of contributors is very impressive and continue to keep your readers fully informed."

Reader survey response:" Finding a truly independent and interesting read has been magical for me. Please keep it up and don't change!"

Reader Survey response:"Cuffelinks is one of very few places an investor can go and not have product rammed down their throat. Love your work!"

Eleanor Dartnall, AFA Adviser of the Year, 2014:

​"Our clients love your newsletter. Your articles are avidly read by advisers and they learn a great deal in so doing."

Reader Survey response:"Keep it up - the independence is refreshing and is demonstrated by the variety of well credentialed commentators. Allow the articles to be as long as needed to cover the topic."

Reader Survey response:"The best innovation I have seen whilst an investor for 25 years, particularly in superannuation. The writers are brilliant. A great publication which I look forward to every week."

Ian Kelly, CFP, BTACS Financial Services:"Probably the best source of commentary and information I have seen over the past 20 years – the last 15 as an adviser."

Ian Silk, Chief Executive, AustralianSuper:"Cuffelinks has become part of my required reading: quality thinking, and the writing is sharp and (mercifully) to the point."

John Pearce, Chief Investment Officer, Unisuper:"Out of the (many many) investment-related emails I get, Cuffelinks is one that I always open."

Noel Whittaker, author and Australia’s foremost financial adviser:"Cuffelinks is a fabulous weekly newsletter that is packed full of independent financial advice."

Andrew Buchan, Partner, HLB Mann Judd:"I have told you a thousand times the best newsletter is Cuffelinks."

There’s more to bonds than buy and hold

In fixed income investing, there are two conventional sources of return that investors are familiar with: collecting interest payments from bonds (i.e. income) and correctly predicting the direction of rates, which delivers capital gains or losses (i.e. duration exposure). The expected returns from both these sources are heavily challenged by the current low levels of interest rates and credit spreads, as well as uncertainty about their future direction.

But what if there was another source of returns that could help restore balance to fixed income portfolios? At Ardea, we believe that source of return is relative value fixed income investing.

Relative value strategies can deliver positive returns from fixed income, irrespective of the current level or future direction of rates and credit spreads. Conventional approaches tend to miss these opportunities. Conventional return sources are challenged at the moment and simply holding government bonds is no longer a reliably defensive strategy.

Conventional fixed income return sources are challenged

For investors seeking a defensive investment, fixed income has traditionally been the asset of choice. The debt markets, by offering a senior claim above equities on the assets of a company or government can provide a safer option for investors’ capital. In addition, bonds can provide a stable stream of income as bond issuers are contractually obliged to make regular interest payments, unlike equity dividends, which can be cut at any time.

However, three challenges currently face those reliant on fixed income to provide reliably defensive returns.

The first is that low interest rates have eroded the yield cushion in fixed income. We can think of the income from a bond as a ‘yield cushion’ because that stream of income (or yield) helps cushion investors’ capital against losses if rates rise. When rates are low, the yield cushion is thin, giving little protection against potential capital losses.

For example, as bond yields rose in late 2016 and early 2017, 10-year Australian government bonds incurred a capital loss of around 10% over 6 months, compared to interest income of just 1.13% over the same period.

Hardly what you expect from a ‘defensive’ investment. Add to this, the fact that central banks around the world are signalling a shift away from the extreme stimulus that has kept rates suppressed since the 2008 financial crisis. Investors are now left with less return for more risk.

The second is that bonds are not as reliable a risk diversifier as commonly assumed. An allocation to bonds is supposed to provide a buffer when equity markets fall, as bond yields should decline and thus bond prices rise.

The starting point of bond yields is already close to zero. In addition, while this bond-equity correlation has held in recent history, a longer perspective shows that it’s actually quite unstable. It is sensitive to shifting interest rate and inflation paradigms, just like the one we’re currently seeing in the US.

The third is that ‘credit creep’ in fixed income portfolios has further compromised the defensiveness of fixed income portfolios. The ‘reach for yield’ means larger allocations to higher yielding credit assets, with more risk in the form of defaults, credit spread volatility and illiquidity.

‘Credit tourists’ accepting these risks

In the desperation for yield, defensive portfolios that wouldn’t normally take these types of credit-related risks have been forced to become ‘credit tourists’.

In benign markets, credit assets tend to perform independently of equities (i.e. they have low correlation to equities). But in times of market stress, say during a recession, they often become highly correlated and incur capital losses as equities fall, just when the defensiveness of fixed income is most needed. This risk has been masked by the current bull market, resulting in a build-up of hidden equity ‘beta’ in fixed income.

Particularly concerning is the growing evidence of late cycle credit risks. Corporate borrowers are taking advantage of cheap debt and weakening creditor protection in bond and loan terms. The extreme ‘reach for yield’ behaviour includes a BBB-rated European company issuing a bond with a negative yield. That’s right, a company with real default risk being paid to borrow money! This is the kind of behaviour you might see towards the end of a party. Seems like a good idea at the time, but the next morning not so much. This topic is discussed in Ardea’s publication: “Corporate bonds – More Risk for Less Return”, available here.

What’s the alternative and why does it exist?

Conventional fixed income approaches focus on how much yield can be earned from buying and holding a bond. In contrast, a relative value approach specifically identifies whether that bond is mispriced relative to other related securities with similar risk characteristics and therefore has potential for its price to rise or fall. A profit can then be monetised when the relative mispricing corrects, and capital can be recycled into the next opportunity.

Fixed income markets have a vast range of liquid bonds and derivatives giving diverse opportunities to exploit. Rotating through many modestly sized and uncorrelated relative value positions can deliver more stable returns with lower risk than portfolios with large concentrated bets on market direction. Positions can be isolated from unwanted market risks by using risk management tools such as derivatives, meaning relative value portfolios can seek returns independent of the current level and future direction of interest rates.

Fixed income markets are inefficient. Underlying structural factors such as regulation, investor mandate restrictions, market segmentation and varying investor objectives have always existed in fixed income. These forces give rise to buying and selling flows that are non-economic in nature (i.e. they’re not focused on maximising profit). Examples include banks managing their balance sheets, insurance companies hedging liabilities, passive investors tracking benchmarks and central banks pursuing policy objectives. These drivers of market inefficiency are structural in nature and persistent through time and across market cycles. The reliable source of returns allows for a repeatable investment process.

What can relative value do for you?

A relative value approach does not rely on accumulating bonds to harvest yield or trying to predict market direction or reaching for yield in credit and is therefore not vulnerable to those challenges. It can include specific strategies to protect against extreme negative scenarios, for example, by using interest rate options that profit from rising volatility. The end result is the potential for stable returns exceeding cash or inflation.

The opportunities provide compelling diversification benefits when used alongside traditional government bond, credit or equity investments, as indicated in the diagram below.

Gopi Karunakaran is a Portfolio Manager at Ardea Investment Management and Sam Morris is an Investment Specialist at Fidante Partners, a sponsor of Cuffelinks. This article is for general information only and does not consider the circumstances of any individual.

Good on you Jim. I do the same in my personal investments, using bond funds for the purpose. When yields increase, so does the income my bond holdings generate and the short term unit price decline is irrelevant in the scheme of things.

That said, I do expect the fund managers I use to undertake relative value trading within the portfolio to generate as much return over time as they can. I just don’t see this as a strategy for times like now, but it’s always been part of the active fixed income manager’s armoury. We were doing relative value switches within the semi-government securities market back in the 1980’s when underlying yields were in double digits.

It’s hard to argue with Gopi’s underlying thesis. It is a fact that here is very little cushion left in most devt. market sovereign bonds. It is also plain to see that spreads on credit are at historic lows and look outright scary in certain sectors such as high-yield. We have our own fun in Australia where you see unrated high-yield bonds come to market and investors fall over themselves, pushing down yields straight away..

The problem we face is that we are in the unique environment where both equities and bonds look expensive and Greenspan often asserts. Bonds no longer provide the same safe haven where you could run a traditional 60/40 portfolio and clip the coupon at 7% on your bond portfolio knowing they would provide further upside if markets pulled back and there was a flight to safety. The whole space looks challenged IMO and it’s hard to know where to look.

Question becomes can relative value actually add value or is it a clever well-timed marketing poly that will cost 60-75 bps for cash-like returns? I am definitely keen to find out more as there is a need to be more open minded against the current backdrop.